---

European Council: 23-24 March 2006

My Lords, we on these Benches recognise that this was an informal summit with, primarily, an economic agenda; therefore, we will focus primarily on the economic agenda. On energy policy, I certainly defer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as he is a much greater expert than I am. However, I would say that the essence of any European energy policy must be a more coherent approach towards Russia. Sadly, there does not appear to be any strong reference in the communiqué, so far as I can see, about a more coherent policy towards Russia. That is also highly relevant to our reaction to what is happening in Belarus. Russian influence is clearly part of the key to what happens in that poor benighted country. We welcome the progress that has been made with the European research council, so long as the council manages to avoid getting into juste retour questions and being caught up in a new administrative empire in which state-centred university systems reimpose their priorities. The British Government have not been fully engaged in the Bologna process all the way through. It is very important that the Bologna process of increasing co-operation among European universities ends up with a more open system. We hope that the British Government are now fully engaged in that. We note the rather puzzling and cool reference in paragraph 25 of the communiqué, in which the European Council notes the significance of the Commission’s communication on the European institute of technology. I presume that that means, ““We didn’t like it very much and we don’t agree””. We, from these Benches, note that the proposal for the European institute of technology carries within it a number of large potential elephant traps, including the suggestion by British Labour Members of the European Parliament that the proposal should be adapted to fit the building of the European Parliament in Strasbourg so that the European Parliament could continue only to meet in Brussels. I also note the view of my European colleague, Andrew Duff, that the European institute of technology is an excellent idea, provided that it is built in Cambridge. We, on these Benches, think that we need to avoid new institutions and ensure that this is part of the European research council. On better regulation, we welcome what is said in the communiqué, but we wish that the British Government would admit that we have also contributed our fair share to over-regulation in the European Union. I recall that in the Dutch referendum much fun was made by the antis of the new European zoo regulation, pushed by the British Government on to our colleagues because the British animal welfare lobby wished us to have it. I hope that, as the services directive moves through to implementation, we will maintain pressure to pursue our goals. Let me also ask about the odd declaration on the European pact for gender equality, with its reference to an annual report on equality between women and men. What does that imply? How do the British Government see that as contributing to further European integration? Does it also imply a new agency for gender equality? Are the British Government entirely happy with what is moving forward in that direction? Gibraltar and the Crown territories are also included in the directive. The Minister will be aware that many of us on these Benches have large questions to ask about the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown territories in Europe. We notice again that relations with Gibraltar have been defined in a different way from relations with the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. We are not entirely sure that it is possible to sustain the degree of ambiguity which the United Kingdom now has in relations with these different European Crown territories—in relation to the geographical extent of British legislation as it applies to them on some issues and not on others, and the different relations that each of them now has with the European Union. I have two specific questions here. First, can we be assured that there will be proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate of the new Gibraltar constitutional treaty? Secondly, may we press for a sessional committee to examine the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Crown territories? Every time I have asked about this, I am referred back to the Kilbrandon commission of 1974, which produced a short and deeply ambiguous paper on the relationship. That is not enough. Lastly, I simply chide the Government about the style of the opening paragraphs of this announcement. I wish Ministers could avoid a little bit of the Thatcherite triumphalism which has entered into British speeches towards the European continent. Yes, of course we are very glad that the British economy has grown more rapidly than the continental economy—although some of us wish that our public transport system was as good as that of the French, the Germans or the Dutch. Not everything in Britain is necessarily always better than things on the Continent. If we wish to sustain British leadership in the European Union and to contribute towards a more constructive debate across Europe about the future of Europe, it would be better if we preached a little less. We are, after all, halfway through the period of reflection agreed to after the failure of the French and Dutch referenda. Perhaps British Ministers might like to talk rather more about the future of Europe and a little less about how much better Britain is than our EU colleagues.